Parking should be for students Regarding
“Existing
parking problems worsened by lots of tennis fans,” (Daily
Bruin, News, July 30), allow me to share with you my experience on
a Thursday (notorious street cleaning day) of the Mercedes-Benz
Cup. When I looked for parking, about an hour before my 9:30 a.m.
discussion in which we were reviewing for a midterm the following
day, parking was nowhere to be found due to street cleaning. After
45 minutes of circling the block, I decided I’d have to buy
parking or risk being late for class. I was then informed the only
place I could buy parking for was Lot 1, 3 or 32 because all other
lots were reserved for the matches. Since I had 10 minutes to make
it to the Math Sciences Building, I had no choice but to decline
and try to find my own parking. I ended up walking into my
50-minute discussion 35 minutes late. Now I ask, was this
university originally built for the use of large tennis
tournaments? Maybe the university could be a bit more understanding
and force those who are paying $6 for a one-day ticket to park five
miles away, rather than asking those paying $5,000 worth of tuition
to do so.
Stephanie Herczog Third-year Astrophysics
Casual sex tips impractical I was so delighted
that Chez Shadman shared with all of us the secrets to making
casual sex safe (“Casual sex:
It’s not just for “˜sinners’ anymore,”
Daily Bruin, Viewpoint, Aug. 6). The next time I want to hook up
for a one-night stand at 2 a.m., I’ll just trade STD test
results with the girl and have her complete a 20-question sexual
history questionnaire ““ lie detector optional ““ to
confirm she’s not what Shadman terms “the village
bicycle.” I feel most indebted to Shadman for sharing such
useful information and advice.
Benjamin Kong Third-year Economics and international
area studies
Worker groups fight injustices Mike
Hansen’s false portrayal of the the sweatshop movement and
mass boycotts (“Globalization
inspires worldwide unification, diversity,” Daily Bruin,
Viewpoint, Aug. 6) fails to reflect the genuine gains that have
grown out of such movements to protect workers. Over the last few
years there have been national boycotts against Guess?, Nike, GAP
and its related brands Banana Republic and Old Navy, bringing the
plight of workers into the public consciousness. Factory monitoring
and improved conditions have resulted from targeting corporations.
This growth in awareness has helped the Worker Rights Consortium, a
monitoring agency, become a key element in assuring humane working
conditions in clothing production. The Fair Trade Coffee movement
has also taken Europe, the United States and UCLA by storm.
Certified Fair Trade Coffee distributors give more profits directly
to farmers, instead of greedy middlemen, contributing to a better
livelihood. Farmers are free to create cooperatives that provide
education, health care and other services that coffee plantations
normally lack. The recent boycott of Elephant Snack Corner in
Koreatown has resulted in the restaurant having to pay thousands of
dollars in back pay, along with the restaurant being monitored for
the next three years. In addition, the Korean Immigrant Worker
Advocates helps monitor the restaurant and must be informed upon
the hiring of any new employee. Apologists, who hide behind words
like “unity” to describe the ruthless expansion of
global capital, attempt to misinform others about this inhumane
process. One of capitalism’s greatest weapons lies in
dividing workers. If Hansen truly believes in unity, he should
support unions, worker-based community organizations and the unity
between workers that they promote.
Brian Montes Alumnus and former member of the
Environmental Coalition
Globalization helps workers Reza Kermani writes
that investment by U.S. companies in developing nations is harmful.
(“Globalization
hurts, not helps, nations,” Daily Bruin, Viewpoint, Aug.
13) Actually, foreign workers in general welcome such investment
because it means more jobs, more income and a higher standard of
living. It helps bring idle economic resources into efficient usage
and provides tax revenue for local governments. I have been
involved in many such projects around the world for the past 40
years, most recently in a foreign financed vegetable oil factory in
Nigeria. It provided jobs for 350 Nigerians, markets for cotton and
peanut farmers and tax revenue to support local schools and medical
facilities. Kermani refers to such foreign financial economic
production as exploitation of labor and land. Nigerians refer to it
as a much needed source of a higher standard of living.
Theodore A. Andersen Emeritus Professor
Finance
Guns need more policing I found Marc
Nickel’s piece on gun control (“Better laws
would end gun control controversy,” Daily Bruin,
Viewpoint, Aug. 13) both disturbing and illogical. After first
conceding that current gun control measures (background checks,
waiting periods, etc.) are ineffective because of the black market
and unfair to law-abiding citizens, he attempts to explain why even
more restrictions on guns (training, testing and licensing) is the
right thing. There are two fundamental flaws in Nickel’s
argument. First, more restrictions do nothing to close the black
market. On the contrary, they drive more criminals to the black
market while discouraging law-abiding citizens from owning guns by
requiring these convoluted procedures, expensive registration and
training fees. Secondly, there is a big difference between a car
and a gun. Operating an automobile is a privilege and thus each
state licenses people to drive. However, owning and operating
firearms is a right protected by the the Constitution. Licensing
people to use firearms is like licensing people to practice their
religion or to express themselves freely. The solution to violence
in our society is not more laws but better enforcement of current
legislation and harsher punishments for those who use firearms
unlawfully.
Kevin Williams Graduate Student Biochemistry and
Molecular Biology
Decision in gun case tells more We agree with
many of the points made in Marc Nickel’s column
“Better laws
would end gun control controversy,” (Daily Bruin,
Viewpoint, Aug. 13). However, Nickel seems to have misread the
Supreme Court’s decision in the Navegar case. The evidence
presented during the case indicated that the TEC-DC9 gun, which was
used by the killer, had no socially redeeming value for civilian
use. It was not useful for hunting, nor was it useful for self
defense without the significant risk of killing bystanders. It was
a “small, easily concealable military assault weapon”
which was advertised as being “fingerprint resistant,”
and “tough as your toughest customer.” Navegar claimed
the gun was “designed to deliver a high volume of fire
power.” The California Supreme Court did not hold that
Navegar was not negligent. However, the Court felt constrained by
special legislation adopted at the behest of the gun industry which
granted immunity to gun manufacturers from the consequences of any
negligent or reckless conduct on the manufacturers’ part. The
gist of the plaintiffs’ case was that gun manufacturers
should be held to the same standards as the manufacturers of any
other product in our society. The manufacturers of automobiles,
flammable clothing and electrical appliances, to name a few, are
all subject to liability if their negligence or recklessness lead
to the injury or death of innocent people. There is no reason to
treat gun manufacturers any differently. We believe that the gun
industry should be treated no differently than any other business
when it comes to being responsible for the design, manufacture and
distribution of the products it puts out on the market. State Sen.
Don Perata, D-Oakland, has introduced an amendment to Senate Bill
682 to apply the same standards to the gun industry as are
applicable to other businesses. It is time that our elected
officials understand that California should not kowtow to the gun
industry and ignore the safety of California residents.
George A. Hisert President of Legal Community Against
Violence and the National Firearm Law Center